NamelessMofo 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (160) comment rss

  • On the post: Does Futurism Have A Future?

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2006 @ 06:24am

    The problem with futurism

    Is thinking its a profession. Its not. We don't need think tanks wondering about what will happen a year, a decade, a century from now. We can all pick up a good sci-fi book and wonder about the future. In fact, most "futurists" tend to be fiction writers, like Arthur C Clark. They throw out so many new ideas that eventually some of them are correct. The problem is thinking they have some clearer sense of the future. Again, write 100 books about the future, and eventually your going to predict something that will happen. It's called playing the ODDS.

    What we need is more people thinking about now, how to deal with today's problems, so that we will have a future. There is no point wondering what the future of computers or robots or science in general will bring if our earth is on the brink of devastation from global warming. In fact, there are not enough minds on global warming because they don't really seem to know what is going on, just alarmists predicting the end of the earth because our cars exhaust carbon dioxide or monoxide. These futurists posing as scientists saying that if we don't change our ways, we will be doomed. Offer us a solution on how we can change our ways rather then alarmist grand standing.

    We need more people thinking about solutions NOW rather then what it will be like later. I equate futurists to psychics, roadshow con artists that will take your money to tell you what you want to hear. There is nothing "professional" about this.

  • On the post: Is It Illegal To Describe The Sporting Event You're Watching?

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2006 @ 06:30am

    What is there to worry about?

    I mean, unlike movies and music, where pirating the content can cause a loss of sales, are you telling me that people would rather watch a cruddy low-resolution cameraphone recording of a World Cup soccer game over watching it on cable in HD, or actually being there?

    In the case of the World Cup, where tickets have been sold out for months, the fact that people outside the stadiums are seeing the games not through the regular channels is moot. I mean, FIFA has already made their money on these events, even before the first ball was kicked. The only case where some channels might loose money is in ad revenue if they feel more people are watching it through amateur channels, but again, watching the World Cup on a wide-screen HD television is superior to watching it on some low resolution intermittent webcast.

    The bottom line is that people will prefer to be there, but when there are limited ticket sales and they get sold out, people will look at other ways to see the game. IN many cases, the regular distribution channels are blacked out if you live in the city hosting the game. In these cases, you are left with no choice but to look for alternative to traditional game broadcasts.

    I can see organized sports getting worried if in a few years the only people attending a game are a handful of people with cameraphones trained on the fields, but when you can still fill a stadium with World Cup fanatics, or a rink with NHL fanatics, or a diamond with MLB fanatics, I wouldn't worry.

    And of course, they should worry when they keep jacking up the price of tickets. Eventually, people will compromise to watch the game on a cellphone or website when it becomes too prohibitive to watch the game live.

  • On the post: Laptop Quality Sucks Just A Bit Less

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2006 @ 12:59pm

    MIT laptop is a joke

    Sorry, stop promoting this as anything more then a toy, in fact, I expect that this Christmas, Leap Frog or Fisher Price will come out with a similar device that costs $79.99. The point and purpose of the $100 laptop is completely misguided.

    In any regards, laptop quality does seem to be improving, as each year I see new laptops around the office suck just a little bit less, but I still see a slew of them sent of to be serviced for such things as bad screen latches, hard drive problems, screen problems, battery problems, etc, etc, etc. While the quality of the materials and screens might be improving, in general when you compare laptops to desktops, you will probably return a laptop 5 to one compared to a desktop system.

    This, surprisingly, includes the latest round of MacBooks Pros, and the few I have seen all have many minor annoances outside of what I have been reading online.

    Does anybody wonder is perhaps the culprit here is the cheap slave labour in Asia putting these things together? When Dell sells a few million laptops in a quarter, does anybody need to question how quality can result when quantity is valued greater?

  • On the post: Shedding Light On The Hidden Fee Economy

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2006 @ 10:37am

    Why

    Because the collective IQ of any population pool is essentially 0.

    People are stupid, period. There is no sugar coating it, or diplomatic way of putting it. In any given crowd, most of them are dumb f*cking asses in one way or another.

    And I am not talking about the difference between people educated in schools over people that drop out or don't do well. I know doctors and lawyers and of course, politicians, with all the education money can buy act like the most significantly retarded people on the planet.

    The simple fact is, corporations understand this culture of ignorance. They know that if they put an ad in the newspaper saying that car costs $13,000, that after they whirl figures of lease rates, interest rates, all the taxes and docking fees and transportation fees, and everything else over peoples heads, that many people still thinking they paid $13,000 for a car and got a great deal in fact will pay $16,000 after everything is said and done. The saddest part is, most people will never realize they paid $16,000, largely because the never bothered to multiple their monthly lease/purchase rate by the total number of months they will lease or buy the car. They can't even do simple arithmatic.

    It is why a cell phone service advertises for $19.99 a month, but people are f*cking shocked when their bill hits over $40 without including long distance charges.

    We live in a culture where people are lazy, and lazy breeds stupidity. People don't want to read the fine print, and corporations know if they make the font small enough, and put in enough legal mumbo jumbo, people WON'T read the fine print. If you don't read the fine print, don't be shocked when you always pay more then you think you owe.

    There is no such thing as a smart customer. Corporations all know that to some extent every customer is a retard waiting to be ripped off. If you feel duped or angry about it, smarten up and get a clue! In most cases, you can control your own destiny, in others, you have to accept this is the fact.

  • On the post: SUV Drivers Really Are Bastards

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2006 @ 04:23am

    Do a real survey

    Sorry, but when I speak to most my friends in the Uk and Europe about SUV's, they have no idea what I am talking about. The SUV culture is not as big over there as it is here, and places like in London and other old European centers with their small roads, SUV's are completely avoided. Europe is a culture where the origianl mini-sized cars originated, so I can imagine that anybody seeing a full size SUV driving down the road probably just hates it out of hand.

    Its not to say that ouside London, where the roads are wider that SUV's are not starting to take over, the Land Rover, one of the original SUV's did originate in England, but a survey about SUV drivers really should have been generated in North America. Its the difference between 10 SUV drivers compared to 1,000 per square mile

  • On the post: The Separation Of News From The Newspaper

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2006 @ 09:55am

    Make a distinction

    Between the ORIGINATORS of news, and the REGURGITATORS of news.

    Sorry TechDirt, your a regurgitator.

    Newspapers have to learn to be a realtime originator of news in the online world. Stop trying to figure out what to print tomorrow, nobody cares by the time your paper hits the streets. Changing to a realtime originator of news is how they need to operate.

    Then, perhaps, create a premium news content stream, where regurgitators must pay a licensing fee in order to drop all their links and make all their snide comments on the original article.

    If you could get continued quality news in realtime from a quality source, then why should all the regurgiators simply leach off the originators without paying for it. It may be a new business model that newspapers should look into.

    The bottom line is, readers don't want to have to pay for news, so if its the choice of paying for a newspaper with yesterdays news, or picking your favourte free online new regurgitator service for up to the minute news links, who do you think is going to be the online winner?

  • On the post: Blaming Google For Your Own Failure To Protect Info

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2006 @ 07:32am

    Ignorance is Bliss I guess

    The Internet still represents a big huge black box of unknowns to most people, even those in the tech industry and especially among politicians and in the legal trade. It is ripe for such baseless attacks such as this.

    It is starggering actually when you talk to many people that they don't understand the concept of WORLD WIDE WEB, that anything you put online is subject to WORLD WIDE exposure. How many local businesses put up a website only expecting local coverage, and instead get international requests. In this case, the school POSTED something online so that only the students attending the school could see it, without realizing that without proper protection, this information is viewable by the world.

    My recommendation to anybody making a website or using the Internet, if you don't intend to make information global and public, DON'T PUT IT ONLINE. If it is important, DON'T PUT IT ONLINE. Period. Its the WORLD WIDE WEB and it means that even if you put a password on it, you are potentially exposing the information globally.

    Sounds like the school wanted to save a few dimes and not print report cards and use the Internet for a cheap way to disseminate information. When will the legal system start implementing the "Slap upside the head" clause when people file lawsuits because of their own stupidity.

  • On the post: Google Claims IE's Searchbar Is Uncompetitive

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2006 @ 09:25pm

    Whatever

    Come on you techie freaks...Who gives a rats shizass about this...if you like freakin google use it...if you like MS use that! Republican Democrat Ford Dodge Chevy...its all a matter of free choice...and if you cant figure out how to side step a few of the simple corporate land mines then you better stop using your computer, because your probably just spreading viruses and spyware.
    People are so intense about the dumbest stuff sometmes!!!

  • On the post: Is Cost Per Action A Big Deal?

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2006 @ 12:32pm

    Lets say the truth here

    I had a website for a year running with an affiliate program that paid me commision if someone clicked through my website and made a purchase or signed up for a service. A CPA methodology. I didn't earn one dime. There is no guarantee, proof, or legislation that states a retail website has to pay you commision based on clicks.

    I think what is really happening here is that Google is tired of paying people for just clicking on or viewing an ad link, and instead, wants to pay less money by implementing the idea that fewer people actually click through and perform an action. Google wants to pay their affiliates less to implement a service that makes Google rich.

    The problem with CPA is that it is based on cookies. When you click to a retail site, the ad stores a cookie on the clicker's system, when the clicker buys something from this website, technically the cookie links the sale back to the originating website that the advertising was on.

    The problem with cookies is everybody thinks they are evil and tries and prevent them from being stored on their computer, or persisting for any length of time. In many cases, people simply turn off cookies, in others, cookies only last for the current session. In theory, even if the user leaves and returns back to the website, your supposed to earn your commission, but if the cookie is gone or never existed, forget about it.

    The bottom line is, maybe for extremely high volume websites, CPA works and can earn them money. The problem is that Google banks that AdSense attracts millions of smaller low to moderate volume websites to proliferate their advertising, and they want to pay those millions of websites far less money then a CPC scheme. I am sure that once Google's "Trial" of CPA is over, they will realize that even if they pay more per action, they will save millions in payouts (or payoffs). CPA will become Google's ONLY methodology.

    This is another notch that proves Google is greedy and evil, when will people wake up!

  • On the post: And The Lord Said, Let There Be Spywayre

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2006 @ 12:16pm

    Hmm

    So, when you stop in the game and see "Prepare to meet Thy God", do you get a nasty shock through the controller?

    The real problem with doing business with Christians is that they feel they are right and everybody else is wrong. The customer is always right doesn't apply to them.

  • On the post: Now It's Time For Summer Camps To Freak Out Over MySpace

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2006 @ 12:48pm

    Prevent talking about camp online

    Most likely to avoid having kids see how miserable and unappealing camp programs can be before they show up for their week of hell.

    Also, I am sure they are not banning cameras, so wouldn't it be reasonable to think that once people LEAVE camp, they are free to talk about it online?

    Lastely, I might actually like these camps since they seem to offer wireless online connectivity. Most camps I have been too in the past don't even have a TV.

    This is a pure example of what happens when stupid people read (the camp site owners freaking out I mean, not about me writing a comment about it...or is it?).

  • On the post: Are Wine.com Investors Drunk?

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2006 @ 12:30pm

    One big glaring problem

    Alcohol is tightly regulated, trying to sell something that is tightly regulated online is a complete waste of time.

    Different states, provinces, countries all have different ways of taxing products and regulating sales. They also have local laws which a website has now way to conform to.

    For instance, one BIG glaring problem with a website selling alcohol is there is no true way to validate the age of the person buying the wine. I mean, anybody could borrow Daddy's credit card and have some wine purchased and delivered to the prom.

    Consider also the taxation of alcohol which is mostly included in the price of the product. In Canada, alcohol is heavily taxed. I am sure a Canadian, or even someone outside the registered state for wine.com, couldn't just buy and import wine like they can with running shoes or bobby pins.

    The whole fact that alcohol is tightly regulated is to
    a) Ensure that minors don't get access to and abuse alcohol and
    b) For those adults that wish to abuse it, make sure to get enough taxation dollars out of them.

    And online website violates these two rules for selling libations.

    I can't understand how anybody thinking they can sell wine online thinks this would work. Or rather, I can't see how anybody could be dumb enough to give millions to a company that says they can.

    This sounds like another investment scam. I could not imagine how any company could squander $100 million on such a dumb concept, except for the purpose of ripping off investors and investing in propery in the Bahamas. I could set up website selling ANYTHING for around $500 in pure costs (domain registration, server space, and access to credit card/pay pal services). It is staggering to think that anybody believes that a website startup requires millions of dollars.

  • On the post: HP Tells Retailers They're Infringing Patents By Refilling Ink Cartridges

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2006 @ 08:06am

    Get a clue!

    Honestly, what most people ar bitching about here is they don't want to spend $120 to refil their $40 printer. Epson and HP are losing money by selling $40 printers and having people refill their inks elsewhere.

    The SOLUTION! Make the Printer $500 like they used to be and sell ink CHEAP!.

    You people want your $40 printer and then want to spend pennies to refill it, THAT BUSINESS MODEL will never work.

    Instead, I would much rather pay $500 for a high quality photo printer, and then have the choice to buy my ink where ever I want and to have ink cheaper overall.

    Typically, Epson and HP know what they are doing when it comes to ink technology compared to some Tawain ink maker that gets all their ink from the same drum for EVERY printer. When your pinter becomes clogged and print quality drops, don't blame Epson or HP when your using cheap 3rd party ink.

    But, in the long run, don't expect to pay peanuts for ink when your paying peanuts for the printer.

  • On the post: Movie Studios Play Right Into Steve Jobs' Hands

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2006 @ 10:32am

    Apple movie store will bomb

    At a time the industry is turning to high definition, Apple will offer poor quality, overly compressed movies for a specific device. Haven't we seen this fail already? (UMD anyone).

    Given that I don't know what to expect from Apple's next generation TRUE video iPod, here is pretty much why selling movies at the iTMS will fail:

    1) Apple won't offer 1gb+ high definition quicktime videos. Trailers are topping 100mb for 2 minutes of high definition content, Apple won't offer a 90 minute feature films topping 3gb. Therefore, Apple's movie offering will support 5G video (320 x 240) or possibly some widescreen version of the iPod that will still be less then standard definition in order to keep file sizes low. The format will also be overly compressed, reducing its quality. Apple WON'T support surround sound either, making the file size smaller. Apple doesn't even support Digital 5.1 surround sound on their comoputers, so the iPod won't have it.

    2) Apple won't offer HDMI upconverting or support in their iPod product line. This will add too much licensing and technology costs to their iPod product, making it too expensive to sell. Apple will stick to composite and s-video modes (probably won't support component video either). Remember, Apple is targeting movies for the iPod products, NOT as movies shippable to be played on full featured computers. The movie formats will be crippled to the capabilities of the iPod hardware.

    3) Apple will sell movies only. There will be no special features or additional content, except as individual downloads. Apple WOULD be smart to create some kind of compressed DVD file that would include menus and content, but I doubt Apple will do this. Apple will not want to spend the time and money to repackage movies into some all-in-one format, and the industry will not bother either. Apple isn't even doing digital booklets right for CD's. I mean, why can't the digital booklet be viewable in iTunes or on an iPod? People want and care about the special features on DVD's, its part of the reason the format was so quickly adopted. It offers more value for the money then just shipping the movie alone.

    4) Who actually wants to watch a movie on a tiny screen for 2 hours. When you hold something in your lap for 2 hours ( I don't think you going to hold it up for 120 minutes) and have to crane your neck to watch it, it becomes very unenjoyable to watch, quickly. Also, I am sure Apple won't implement LCD's with fast refresh rates in their next generation iPods. THis means that video output will be blurred and ghosting will occur, as on other video players like the PSP and 5G iPods. This causes some people to get headaches and nausea after a short period of time. Most people actually hate watching a movie on a tiny screen, except if your 5 years old and have an 8 hour road trip to take.

    People won't want to pay $9.99 for a movie that looks like crap, has no special features, and must be handicapped in order to support the iPod on a tiny screen.

    Movies iare not analogous to music. Music can be listened to while doing something else, movies require full attention. Music can be listened to for short durations, movies require hours of time. Music can be downloaded quickly in high quality formats, movies must be crippled in quality in order to make them small enough in size to be quickly downloaded.

    Even though it is Apple, Apple will still fail to make online movies as successful as online music, as the idea of online movies played on tiny screens is a failed concept in general.

  • On the post: Airlines Finally Realize Their Customers Visit Their Websites

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2006 @ 11:16am

    Some more helpful feedback

    I am amazed when I am booking a flight online why airlines ask you if you want to see the "lowest" priced fair available as an option. I mean, I have a choice of a one-way flight that is going to cost me $2000 compared to the discount fare of $120, which fare do you think I f*cking want?

    I would think it would make sense for there to be a "So you like getting screwed from behind?" option so that I can purposely see the outrageous fares they charge most of the times.

    Also, add the "I am a f*cking cheap ass" option to my customer profile. This will give airlines the hint that maybe charginging $2000 for a one way fare is the reason why they are going bankrupt in the first place.

  • On the post: Re-using Failed Company Names From Web 1.0?

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2006 @ 06:00am

    Tired of Web 2.0 already

    Look, nothing has changed on the web, there is no version 2 of the web out their.

    In fact, when I first started hearing about this, I thought that the web was expected to shift to Internet 2 or some other more advanced network technology like using IPv6 or something bringing about a new era in security and robustness.

    Instead, this is some garbage buzzword used to describe to luddites (i.e. Wall Street Stock Brokers that know nothing about technology) that something has changed in the web to warrant them locking back to the web for investment opportunity.

    It is the keyword for a new Dot.Com bubble that is expanding towards another sharp pin.

    All that has changed is that over the last 5 - 10 years, there has been an increasing focus on delivering online web applications which can mimic desktop application by using AJAX or some other technology that doesn't require full page refreshes in order to show changes in UI states. The only reason why they are calling this Web 2.0 is that some somewhat clever marketing guru over at O'Reilly Media needed a hook to start getting people to buy more books about web development, so they coined the phrase Web 2.0. Wall Street picked it up as a way of invoking some sense of urgency in re-examining the web as an investment opportunity and source of lucrative IPO's.

    It is a CORPORATE fabrication, only idiot CEO's and ignorant web columnists and bloggers promote the idea that the web has undergone any evolutionary change and continue to promote this concept.

    If your website is worth anything, then you will drop Web2.0 except in mock and ridicule.

  • On the post: And The Hits Just Keep On Coming For Vonage

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2006 @ 10:12am

    Vonage is Good

    Unless you have used ANY other VOIP service, the you will realize how feature limiting and poorly implemented Vonage is, much like how the company is run in general. Vonage may have been the first, but other companies know how to do it right, and Vonage isn't one of them.

  • On the post: Cell Phones: Safe. TV Sets: Killers

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2006 @ 10:10am

    HooRay

    This means that LCD televisions will be subsidized by the government to promote them as SAFE alternatives to those child killing CRT televisions, LCD television prices will drop even further.

    Of course, the government would probably just require that a large red mandatory sticker be placed on the front of the TV (Covering up 90% of the screen) saying that this television could kill your child.

  • On the post: Stop Blaming Technology For Stupidity

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2006 @ 01:44pm

    The Truth, period!

    The simple problem is, getting a license is too freaking easy, and SHOULD BE a privilege and a responsibility, NOT A RIGHT!

    You don't have the RIGHT to drive, you have the right to earn the responsibility of having a license, doing ANYTHING that violates that responsibility should revoke that privilege.

    If you cause an accident that is clearly your fault and because you were being unnecessarily distracted, then you should get your license suspended. Kill a person in an accident, if your not thrown in jail, then you should have your license revoked permanently. Cause multiple accidents with obvious signs of distraction, and your license should be revoked.

    Traffic laws are far too lenient and usually all that happens is your fined for the violations. These fines are only designed as an additional source of revenue for governments. Taking bad driver's off the road cost more to implement and enforce and would eat into the profit governments make from traffic violation fines.

    Governments DON'T want to take bad drivers off the road. It would reduce gas tax revenue, tax on car sales, income generated from selling licences and license plates and licensing this and that. A reduction of drivers means less car sales, meaning less work in the auto industry and other related industries like steel workers, etc.

    Drivers generate a LARGE amount of revenue for governments at the city, state/provincial and national levels and are a huge part of our economy.

    But it is f*cking easy and cheap to create a law to ban cellphones or iPods. It gives stupid people the satisfaction of thinking they are safe and that the government is looking out for them, allowing other stupid people to continue to get into accidents regardless and only get paltry fines so they can get back in their car and cause more accidents (and generate more revenue).

    Stricter traffic laws with harshre penalties including REMOVING bad drivers from the roads would make the roads safer, period! But governments are not interested in making the roads safer, just getting people that believe cellphones and iPods are dangerous to shut the f*ck up and stop bitching long enough so they can vote for their favourite idiot politician in the next election.

  • On the post: Stop Blaming Technology For Stupidity

    NamelessMofo ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2006 @ 01:18pm

    Re: Re: Stop Blaming...

    How old is your cellphone? My Motorola Razor can hardly be called a blinder. Perhaps if your using those big brick like Cellphones from the 90's, then I would agree with you.

Next >>